|
Post by Cali on Dec 21, 2012 20:20:56 GMT 1
And we've all learned so much already.
|
|
|
Post by Battlechantress on Dec 21, 2012 20:26:08 GMT 1
What have we learned here, really, Clint? We know each others' stances on various things already. We aren't changing each others' minds on issues like guns, and we damn sure aren't learning much of anything except new ways of antagonizing others. If this is how you want to spend the holiday season, have at it, but there has to be a better alternative (since thoughtful discussion on the matter has been long since gone at least two pages ago).
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Dec 21, 2012 20:43:55 GMT 1
Oh I thought you meant in general. No this thread is beyond reasonable discussion, but most of the posts on the last page were back on topic.
As to what we learned here, among the further details of why people think the way they do, we learned that we can put things aside and take a break.
It's important to remember when there has been such a tragedy that people react to it in different ways. Some clam up, others fan out with brilliant hindsight about what might have been. They're all coping mechanisms and it's easy to get lost behind them and forget that it's our friends we're talking to.
|
|
|
Post by Nord Ronnoc on Dec 21, 2012 22:11:36 GMT 1
My heart and empathy goes out to the families of the victims.
Also, I stumbled upon this video by TotalBiscuit, who has made an excellent point on the mass media covering shootings like this instead of focusing on the victims, among other things.
I hope this has helped you somehow.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Dec 22, 2012 0:00:28 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Dec 22, 2012 3:09:57 GMT 1
LOL.
|
|
|
Post by Warhammer Gorvar on Dec 23, 2012 21:20:01 GMT 1
I;m suprised TB is talking about it because I thought he also kepot himself out of the political light.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Mar 25, 2013 22:59:52 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Mar 25, 2013 23:58:33 GMT 1
And the gun control crowd parading those dead kids around in the name of furthering their agenda is any better?
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Mar 26, 2013 0:15:20 GMT 1
*facepalm* Tact, people... please... tact is needed.
I'll not weigh in on either side of the debate, because I myself am not affected in any way by gun laws in general... but, in this particular case, this was the very last thing those poor people needed.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Mar 26, 2013 0:57:31 GMT 1
Last I checked one side acting with no class or integrity didn't give license to the other side to be the same.
Robocalls suck, regardless of the source and using the dead for politics is beyond the pale.
|
|
|
Post by Cali on Mar 26, 2013 1:00:41 GMT 1
And the gun control crowd parading those dead kids around in the name of furthering their agenda is any better? Two wrongs ain't gonna make a right, bro. My ideal result in this chaotic mess of a debate is for both sides to zip it and stop acting inane, leave the gun laws the way they are, and start focusing on furthering psychiatric and mental programs in any way possible, in hopes of providing care to obviously disturbed people before they turn themselves into killers.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Mar 26, 2013 1:05:39 GMT 1
The NRA and my lot are allowed to *both* act like jackasses, Iron.
And remember, this stuff isn't clear cut. By talking about them now in a political argument, all of us here are using 'those dead kids' as you called them in very much the same way - to score points and argue for them. (Well, except Lily - good for you.) It does seem wrong to bring up people's lives in an argument and I'm not defending it. But every death gets argued about, to prevent more, and that in itself is no dishonour.
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Mar 26, 2013 1:42:56 GMT 1
Let's see here... the moment the news of Sandy Hook came out the gun control crowd immediately started clamoring for stricter gun laws and called NRA a terroristic organization. Meanwhile the NRA is doing what their charter mandates they do: protect the right to keep and bear arms for all people. The robocalling is more than a little tactless, but Wayne LaPierre and many other pro-gun candidates have been arguing facts and doing their best to remain tactful while you've got more than a few very visible people the other side literally calling for the deaths of ALL gun owners, making up BS statistics, breaking laws left and right to "make a point", and so on. Yes, there has been tactlessness on both sides, but I don't see NRA dancing in the blood of innocents in the name of political gain. Reading the article, I see that NRA is doing as they've always done: advocate the point (backed by actual historical fact per multiple Congressional studies and the FBI's own reporting) that banning guns is not the answer.
What's really telling is that the vast majority of what some people are asking for, laws making it illegal for criminals and those who are mentally ill to obtain arms, a already on the books, but they're not properly enforced. In fact, after the VA Tech shootings, it became mandatory for doctors to report serious mental health cases to the NICS (the system set up by FBI to do background checks on firearms sales). And yet we still don't know what issues the Aurora shooter had nor do we know what the Sandy Hook shooter's mental issues were. As an aside, the Sandy Hook attack was planned for years. Police found that he had a 7 page spreadsheet detailing hundreds of previous public attacks. He was clearly driven to create as much mayhem as possible and probably would have molotov'd the school if he didn't have access to guns.
Here's a bit of history. The NRA was originally founded in 1871 by a group of former Union officers in the wake of the Civil War for several reasons. First was to promote marksmanship training among the populace. Second was to protect the citizens' right to keep and bear arms, which included newly-freed slaves. This was especially important since the KKK had been founded six years prior and were killing everyone who tried to help the freed slaves maintain their rights. Hell, the Dred Scott decision specifically stated that "It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went." (bolded for emphasis). Can't exactly have slaves suddenly able to go where they wish, speak what they want, or be able to effectively defend themselves now can we?
The bottom line is very simple here. In this country, it is considered a natural-born civil right to own arms for personal protection and other lawful purposes, equal to the right of peaceable assembly, the right to choose one's own religion, etc. If someone's rights under the First Amendment were under attack (like they were when SOPA was being discussed, if you'll recall), just about everyone would be up in arms over it. And yet we should restrict another civil right without due process simply because someone doesn't agree with it? That makes no sense whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Mar 26, 2013 2:44:18 GMT 1
I don't think anyone is "dancing in the blood of innocents right now." Before anyone else responds I would like to remind everyone to take a deep breath and stay calm.
|
|